15-10-2021, 01:42 PM
Dear Antti,
I hope this message finds you well.
I have been trying to use the knowledge you shared with me (in your replies above) to model more storage options in my TIMES model.
At this point I would love to use a bit of your time to check if my understanding of the storage modelling has improved.
I here attach two files in which I try to model existing thermal storages (VT_CITY_STG_ESK_72ts.xlsx file) and storage technologies in which the model can invest (SubRES_b-NewTechs_STG.xlsx file).
In the first file, I try to model the piping network of a district heating system as a thermal energy storage. I try to represent this type of storage in exact same way as you helped me represent the existing accumulator tank. The only differences being that storage in the network
1) has no lower bound on the level of stored heat
2) has no fixed O&M cost
3) is identified as STG and not as STS type
4) has way higher (assumed for now) storage loss.
Do you think the network storage is represented correctly in the attached file given the points above and the parameters I assumed for the storage in the file, table E29:F37?
In the second file, I try to model storage options available for investments. I hope that the "conventional" storage options, i.e., accumulator tanks and the underground storage (rows 8-10) are represented correctly. Would you agree?
The interesting part of this file is the representation of buildings as thermal energy storage. The idea is that we can store thermal energy using the thermal mass of buildings (overheating and underheating buildings). This is what I have been trying to represent in the model. The main characteristics of this storage type are:
1) input and output commodity is NOT the heat at the district heating system side but the heat at the building side (for each building type!)
2) high storage losses (STG_LOSS = 43.8 based on the input data). Makes sense?
3) low investment cost associated with the installation of additional smart metering equipment.
The input data and assumptions (L52:S67) are still being verified but I am wondering if this way of representing building storage is correct? Could you please give your opinion on this?
I am not sure if I missed any details in this message but I would be glad to answer any additional questions:
Hope to hear back from you and wish you a nice day!
/Dmytro
I hope this message finds you well.
I have been trying to use the knowledge you shared with me (in your replies above) to model more storage options in my TIMES model.
At this point I would love to use a bit of your time to check if my understanding of the storage modelling has improved.
I here attach two files in which I try to model existing thermal storages (VT_CITY_STG_ESK_72ts.xlsx file) and storage technologies in which the model can invest (SubRES_b-NewTechs_STG.xlsx file).
In the first file, I try to model the piping network of a district heating system as a thermal energy storage. I try to represent this type of storage in exact same way as you helped me represent the existing accumulator tank. The only differences being that storage in the network
1) has no lower bound on the level of stored heat
2) has no fixed O&M cost
3) is identified as STG and not as STS type
4) has way higher (assumed for now) storage loss.
Do you think the network storage is represented correctly in the attached file given the points above and the parameters I assumed for the storage in the file, table E29:F37?
In the second file, I try to model storage options available for investments. I hope that the "conventional" storage options, i.e., accumulator tanks and the underground storage (rows 8-10) are represented correctly. Would you agree?
The interesting part of this file is the representation of buildings as thermal energy storage. The idea is that we can store thermal energy using the thermal mass of buildings (overheating and underheating buildings). This is what I have been trying to represent in the model. The main characteristics of this storage type are:
1) input and output commodity is NOT the heat at the district heating system side but the heat at the building side (for each building type!)
2) high storage losses (STG_LOSS = 43.8 based on the input data). Makes sense?
3) low investment cost associated with the installation of additional smart metering equipment.
The input data and assumptions (L52:S67) are still being verified but I am wondering if this way of representing building storage is correct? Could you please give your opinion on this?
I am not sure if I missed any details in this message but I would be glad to answer any additional questions:
Hope to hear back from you and wish you a nice day!
/Dmytro